Toronto O2 Toronto | 48.16m | 14s | Identity | P + S / IBI

The Empress pre-fire collapse was brought about by someone installing a sign into the masonry, was it not? Brick walls aren't designed for lateral loading, and the combination of the weight of the sign and the poor state of the masonry caused the bottom runs of bricks to get pulled out, causing the wall above to fail in a progressive fashion.

And the soffit collapsing at the OPG building is getting awfully overblown, too. It's surprising and shouldn't happen, but CP24 was making it sound like the structure had failed
 
whatever said:
The Empress pre-fire collapse was brought about by someone installing a sign into the masonry, was it not? Brick walls aren't designed for lateral loading, and the combination of the weight of the sign and the poor state of the masonry caused the bottom runs of bricks to get pulled out, causing the wall above to fail in a progressive fashion.
Click to expand...

It's all conjecture at this point. But these situations and every shred of evidence must be forensically scrutinized. It's reassuring that authorities have been treating the Empress arson as seriously as they have.

If we throw up our arms and offer the benefit of the doubt in these highly dubious cases, (as some here seem to be suggesting we do), property owners will feel they can get away with such criminal acts and we will continue to see our heritage getting torched and sabotaged.
 
neubilder said:
It's all conjecture at this point. But these situations and every shred of evidence must be forensically scrutinized. It's reassuring that authorities have been treating the Empress arson as seriously as they have
Click to expand...

So it's just a conjecture when I suggest someone did something silly (which was confirmed by eyewitnesses) and it caused a very old, poorly maintained wall to collapse, but it's not a conjecture when you assert the existence of a massive conspiracy to destroy Toronto's heritage buildings?
 
it's conjecture. I can't prove it, and it's not a massive conspiracy, it's a systemic problem that enables individual property owners to add exponential value to their assets through fraudulent means. It happens all too frequently. Sometimes it backfires and the owners are caught and charged, or they get away with it. Either way the city is poorer for it.
 
Last edited:
whatever said:
So it's just a conjecture when I suggest someone did something silly (which was confirmed by eyewitnesses) and it caused a very old, poorly maintained wall to collapse, but it's not a conjecture when you assert the existence of a massive conspiracy to destroy Toronto's heritage buildings?
Click to expand...

And installing a sign is not likely the cause of a brick wall collapse. I've anchored mezzanines weighing several tons laterally into hundred year old brick masonry as per engineer's specs (Stantec engineering) no problem, it's done all the time. The sign would have to weigh a TON, and be cantilevered out quite far for it to cause such a collapse.
 
whatever said:
So it's just a conjecture when I suggest someone did something silly (which was confirmed by eyewitnesses) and it caused a very old, poorly maintained wall to collapse, but it's not a conjecture when you assert the existence of a massive conspiracy to destroy Toronto's heritage buildings?
Click to expand...

Any anyway, who are you and what is your interest in defending a developer who has expressed blatant disregard for Toronto history if not through blatant criminal acts, then at least through contempt of the heritage designation of their property by making application to demolish contrary to all indications demanding otherwise?
 
Last edited:
neubilder said:
If you consider a developer wanting to rid himself of a pesky historic structure but unwilling to wait several hundred years for it to fall apart by itself a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

neubilder said:
Yes, the Empress is a perfect case in point for falsified 'collapse' in order to attempt to justify demolition.

Tragically a year after the 'collapse' the Lalani's, in their greed and corruption, torched the place anyways.
Click to expand...

neubilder said:
The Empress pre-fire facade collapse was deliberate. It was sabotage. I don't have proof but I'd bet my right arm on it.
Click to expand...

Don't insinuate that I'm the one imagining a conspiracy here.

That wall was severely compromised by decades of modifications for the storefronts, not mention the standard sort of wear and tear for the seasons. Add in that some meathead built a partition wall up against the brick wall and even took the time to insulate it and throw up some vapour barrier, and you have a wall that probably would have come down on its own, with or without the EXTRA stress of having a sign hung off of it.

But don't take my word for it, go and look at the post collapse pictures. (I know you won't, because y'know, you've made up your mind in advance and refuse to look at the evidence).
http://torontoist.com/2010/04/building_wall_collapses_onto_sidewalk_at_yonge_and_gould/

Sheer incompetence, coupled with years of indifference, caused that collapse. Not malice.
 
neubilder said:
Any anyway, who are you and what is your interest in defending a developer who has expressed blatant disregard for Toronto history if not through blatant criminal acts, then at least through contempt of the heritage designation of their property by making application to demolish contrary to all indications demanding otherwise?
Click to expand...

I'd defend anyone from a false accusation. There are more than enough valid claims to be made against Lalani without inventing a bunch of new ones.
 
whatever said:
I'd defend anyone from a false accusation. There are more than enough valid claims to be made against Lalani without inventing a bunch of new ones. .....But don't take my word for it, go and look at the post collapse pictures. (I know you won't, because y'know, you've made up your mind in advance and refuse to look at the evidence).
Click to expand...

Of course I've seen those photos.

How do you know the accusation is false? Are you suggesting no one should make an accusation without proof? If you needed indisputable proof before making an accusation we wouldn't need a justice system. The investigation is ongoing and I'm crossing my fingers that they get a break.

The basis of my accusation:

Motive: Massive increase in property value.

Intent: Applications made, and denied, to demolish for the purpose of redeveloping at the massively increased density both prior to, and after the 'collapse' of the wall.

Demonstrated contempt for the historic designation: Applications to demolish, neglect both prior to and after the 'collapse'.

Suspicious Circumstances: The circumstances surrounding the 'accidental collapse of the wall' do not add up. Unfortunately everybody assumed it was an accident so their was no forensic analysis done of the damaged area. The best way to bring that wall down would be to hammer out the bottom of the brick wall from behind the steel stud drywall wall on the inside. In the photo you can see there is a space at the bottom, underneath the bottom steel stud track. All you would need is a steel rod and a sledge. This would be completely invisible from the street, and a spotter could make sure there were no pedestrians present. Conveniently, once this wall collapsed the building was condemned. Now the Lalani's could wait for the right opportunity to torch the place without killing anyone.

Then the fire, the arsonist that was caught on camera was not your garden variety crazy pyromaniac. This person was moving with stealth and intent.
 
Ok, I think your tinfoil hat might be on a little too tight. No one is disputing that the fire was an arson, and sure, there's reason to believe that Lalani had a hand in it.

The wall collapse is another matter altogether. I've already provided you with a perfectly sound explanation for why it happened, without needing to posit the existence of a series of actors stealthily demo'ing the facade. To take the wall down that way would have taken hours of work, during which time the sidewalk would have needed to be kept clear (since you'd never really know when exactly the wall would go). Not to mention that maybe, just maybe, one of the dozens of people inside the building might have noticed the sound of someone smashing the wall for hours on end with a sledgehammer.

And we do have standards of evidence that have to be met before formal charges are laid in criminal cases. Your fantasy scenario not only lacks that evidence, but directly contradicts the evidence we do have that suggests this is a neglect/incompetence case. But go on, go have yourself a lynch mob if that's the sort of justice you're into.
 
whatever said:
Ok, I think your tinfoil hat might be on a little too tight. No one is disputing that the fire was an arson, and sure, there's reason to believe that Lalani had a hand in it.

The wall collapse is another matter altogether. I've already provided you with a perfectly sound explanation for why it happened, without needing to posit the existence of a series of actors stealthily demo'ing the facade. To take the wall down that way would have taken hours of work, during which time the sidewalk would have needed to be kept clear (since you'd never really know when exactly the wall would go). Not to mention that maybe, just maybe, one of the dozens of people inside the building might have noticed the sound of someone smashing the wall for hours on end with a sledgehammer.

And we do have standards of evidence that have to be met before formal charges are laid in criminal cases. Your fantasy scenario not only lacks that evidence, but directly contradicts the evidence we do have that suggests this is a neglect/incompetence case. But go on, go have yourself a lynch mob if that's the sort of justice you're into.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting it's conceivable that the Lalani's had a hand in starting a six-alarm fire that could have potentially destroyed a city block, but it's inconceivable that they might first try a less intrusive means of achieving the same goal? Namely trying to demonstrate that their historic building is structurally unsafe by staging a collapse?

The building has burned to the ground. Unless a witness comes forward, there is no evidence, so the case for the staged collapse can never be proven. But the next time a notable historic structure begins to mysteriously collapse, soon after a demolition permit is refused, you can be sure that many will be demanding an enquiry and watching like hawks. That's why I'm pushing this argument.

Right now the precedent is: the general public is naive enough to believe that masonry buildings can spontaneously self destruct, so if a heritage designation is preventing you from building that 40 storey tower you've been dreaming about, then all you have to do is knock out a few bricks at the bottom of a wall when no one is watching, and then push real hard when the coast is clear.

If the loss of the Empress serves no other purpose, at least it can inform steps to be taken in the future when similar heritage sites are in jeopardy.
 
Last edited:
My point isn't to put forward conspiracy theories, it is to prevent the future destruction of the scant few historic structures that remain standing in Toronto. My previous post summarizes this I think.
If people are led to believe that masonry structures are as fragile as these 2 cases suggest, they will not even feel safe around historic brick structures in fear that they may crumble, thus readily calling for their demolition when they show signs of disrepair. Which is totally absurd. This process was demonstrated in BOTH of these cases.
Both buildings are gone and nothing can be proven, but we can learn from them to prevent more cases like these from happening in the future.
I have painstakingly preserved 3 historic houses, potentially saving them from demolition, and done improvements to several others. I am passionate about this.
 
Look at all the ancient homes in England still standing. I've learned that once a roof is compromised, it's game over.

I see so many Toronto property owners willfully (imo) allowing their old buildings to decay. Just walk down Spadina for example, or Yonge Street. Many if not all of these Victorian buildings could be restored and really improve the feel of the area. If height caps were put in place, the effect would likely encourage restoration rather than demolition.
 
urbandreamer said:
Look at all the ancient homes in England still standing. I've learned that once a roof is compromised, it's game over.

If height caps were put in place, the effect would likely encourage restoration rather than demolition.
Click to expand...

Now thats well said UD:cool:....even though i love to see them going up tall, i dont mind Toronto keeping its heritage.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top